- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is enough evidence that this is notable and encyclopedic. However, moving it to Buddhists in the US Military seems prudent. UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Military history of Buddhist Americans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While significant coverage has been given to Buddhist chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, and about a single chapel located at the United States Air Force Academy I did not find any significant coverage about the military history of Buddhists in the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, this article appears to be largely based upon WP:SYNTH, as the subject itself is not notable. Individually verified pieces of content are better off in articles about chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, or about the Air Force Academy, but it appears to be too soon for this article to exist as a stand alone article. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- delete. No evidence that the subject per se (MilHist of BudAms) was treated in scholarly sources. Therefore the article is WP:SYNTH. Clearly, any history may be cross-sectioned by arbitrary selection criteria; such as "History of people of ages 20-40", but one needs independent refs to establish the validity of such a narrowed down subject. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. There might be a real topic here, with room to expand this article to deal with the treatment of Buddhist-American soldiers in World War II, and cultural depictions thereof. For example, In Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans during World War II (UC Press, 2011), the author describes the the 1951 film Go for Broke, about the 442nd Infantry Regiment, noting among other things that the film ignored "the Army's actual prohibition of Buddhist chaplains from serving in its ranks" and "represent[ed] religious difference as unproblematic." [1] See also [2] and [3] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand this AfD. No one is saying that Buddhist have not served in the past, including in the
442nd during
World War II. However, the context which those Buddhist have served have not been in the context of their religion, but their race and ethnicity. Thus, why there is a
Military history of Japanese Americans article, with numerous reliable sources about
Japanese Americans serving during World War II as the primary subject of those sources. However, even the sources mentioned by the above editor are in the context of those individuals as a member of a race and ethnicity and not as a member of a particular faith.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except that the sources I noted above deal with the treatment of those soldiers' Buddhism--in WW2, the exclusion of Buddhist chaplains, some pressure to convert to Christianity, burial of killed Buddhist soldiers under crosses. There's a coherent line from "Buddhist chaplains were prohibited in WW2" to "the first Buddhist chaplain was commissioned in 2004" to "the only Buddhist chapel in the United States military is in the basement of the Air Force Academy" that isn't accurately represented if these facts are broken up into three separate articles. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Other points, the first source provided is a fictionalized account of the 442nd during World War II, an not actual accounts. While it is relevant to the movie, it is only indirectly relevant to the history of Buddhist soldiers during World war II, and again the books primary context is the race and ethnicity of the soldier not their faith.
- The second source gives a brief description of the funeral of Sadao Munemori, it only briefly touches upon Buddhist burial rights during the service. Thus not really significant coverage.
- The third source only briefly mentions Buddhist chaplains, in a non-significant coverage manner. Furthermore, the context is more about Japanese American internment than about the religion of the members of the 442nd.
- It appears that there might be content to add to the chaplain article, but insufficient to support a stand alone article.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
10:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I added content that specifically addresses issues of Buddhism regarding Nissei troops in WWII, and is from serious non-fiction accounts from reputable academic publishers. Hope that resolves the issue. While it is not incumbent on a deletionist to improve every article, I think it poor form to spend literally more time AfDing an article that it took me to glance at GoogleBooks and add several serious cited points.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at one of the sources which was added.
- Duncan Ryuken Williams; Tomoe Moriya (25 March 2010).
Issei Buddhism in the Americas. University of Illinois Press. p. 16.
ISBN
978-0-252-09289-3.
Race eventually trumped religion as nearly 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry - whether Buddhist, Shinto, or Christina, whether Japanese or American citizens, including babies who could hardly be considered a national security threat...
- The book itself shows that the main context of the passage is of Japanese Americans who were serving, with Buddhism being one of the characteristics, not of Buddhist Americans who were serving, with their Japanese American ethnicity being one of the characteristics.
- Furthermore, the book's primary subject isn't Buddhist military history in the United States, it is about Buddhism among the Issei in the Americas (not just the United States).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I added content that specifically addresses issues of Buddhism regarding Nissei troops in WWII, and is from serious non-fiction accounts from reputable academic publishers. Hope that resolves the issue. While it is not incumbent on a deletionist to improve every article, I think it poor form to spend literally more time AfDing an article that it took me to glance at GoogleBooks and add several serious cited points.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except that the sources I noted above deal with the treatment of those soldiers' Buddhism--in WW2, the exclusion of Buddhist chaplains, some pressure to convert to Christianity, burial of killed Buddhist soldiers under crosses. There's a coherent line from "Buddhist chaplains were prohibited in WW2" to "the first Buddhist chaplain was commissioned in 2004" to "the only Buddhist chapel in the United States military is in the basement of the Air Force Academy" that isn't accurately represented if these facts are broken up into three separate articles. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand this AfD. No one is saying that Buddhist have not served in the past, including in the
442nd during
World War II. However, the context which those Buddhist have served have not been in the context of their religion, but their race and ethnicity. Thus, why there is a
Military history of Japanese Americans article, with numerous reliable sources about
Japanese Americans serving during World War II as the primary subject of those sources. However, even the sources mentioned by the above editor are in the context of those individuals as a member of a race and ethnicity and not as a member of a particular faith.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (originator): I dispute that this falls under WP:SYNTH. This is not about Group X being in the Army, and Group X coincidentally happening to be Buddhists. The article explicitly discusses the accommodations made in the US military for Buddhist servicemembers. These news articles specifically discuss the concept "Buddhists in the US military", and there are various mentions in books and museum websites of the issues arising from Buddhist Japanese-Americans serving in the US military. I'll go add in some more content, but I think this is a really pedantic jab at what is clearly an encyclopedic subject and treatment. We have parallel articles for Judaism, Sikhism, etc. and we have books and articles specifically discussing the experiences of Buddhists in the American military. Frankly, I think this AFD is a conspicuously poor use of editing time.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- If this is the case than there should be a Christians military history in the United States. While the sources do talk about Buddhist Japanese Americans, the main context is that they are Japanese Americans not that they are Buddhist. Being Buddhist isn't the defining characteristic which the Japanese Americans were discussed in the sources, therefore to imply context that does not exist to the sources IMHO is improper. It was one part of being Japanese in the United States armed forces.
- If this is the case than there should be a Catholic military history in the United States, etc. However, unless there are sources whose primary subject is X religion in the U.S. Military and their history of service, than it isn't proving that the subject of this AfD is notable.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thus the historical section regarding World War II can be seen as a duplication of content that falls more within the scope of the article Japanese American service in World War II, which is the actual context which the context is written about, not specifically the Japanese American servicemembers' religion. The sources used for the section are more about them being Japanese American servicemembers who happen to be Buddhist than Buddhist Americans who happen to be Japanese Americans. Even the sole source that has Buddhism in the sources title preferences that with issei, the term for first generation Japanese American immigrants.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, sources established are secondary and givens significant coverage to the subject. Valoem talk contrib 00:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, but change title to Buddhists in the US Military It does seem a relevant topic, and there are clearly some sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is enough evidence that this is notable and encyclopedic. However, moving it to Buddhists in the US Military seems prudent. UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Military history of Buddhist Americans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While significant coverage has been given to Buddhist chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, and about a single chapel located at the United States Air Force Academy I did not find any significant coverage about the military history of Buddhists in the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, this article appears to be largely based upon WP:SYNTH, as the subject itself is not notable. Individually verified pieces of content are better off in articles about chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, or about the Air Force Academy, but it appears to be too soon for this article to exist as a stand alone article. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- delete. No evidence that the subject per se (MilHist of BudAms) was treated in scholarly sources. Therefore the article is WP:SYNTH. Clearly, any history may be cross-sectioned by arbitrary selection criteria; such as "History of people of ages 20-40", but one needs independent refs to establish the validity of such a narrowed down subject. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. There might be a real topic here, with room to expand this article to deal with the treatment of Buddhist-American soldiers in World War II, and cultural depictions thereof. For example, In Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans during World War II (UC Press, 2011), the author describes the the 1951 film Go for Broke, about the 442nd Infantry Regiment, noting among other things that the film ignored "the Army's actual prohibition of Buddhist chaplains from serving in its ranks" and "represent[ed] religious difference as unproblematic." [1] See also [2] and [3] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand this AfD. No one is saying that Buddhist have not served in the past, including in the
442nd during
World War II. However, the context which those Buddhist have served have not been in the context of their religion, but their race and ethnicity. Thus, why there is a
Military history of Japanese Americans article, with numerous reliable sources about
Japanese Americans serving during World War II as the primary subject of those sources. However, even the sources mentioned by the above editor are in the context of those individuals as a member of a race and ethnicity and not as a member of a particular faith.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except that the sources I noted above deal with the treatment of those soldiers' Buddhism--in WW2, the exclusion of Buddhist chaplains, some pressure to convert to Christianity, burial of killed Buddhist soldiers under crosses. There's a coherent line from "Buddhist chaplains were prohibited in WW2" to "the first Buddhist chaplain was commissioned in 2004" to "the only Buddhist chapel in the United States military is in the basement of the Air Force Academy" that isn't accurately represented if these facts are broken up into three separate articles. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Other points, the first source provided is a fictionalized account of the 442nd during World War II, an not actual accounts. While it is relevant to the movie, it is only indirectly relevant to the history of Buddhist soldiers during World war II, and again the books primary context is the race and ethnicity of the soldier not their faith.
- The second source gives a brief description of the funeral of Sadao Munemori, it only briefly touches upon Buddhist burial rights during the service. Thus not really significant coverage.
- The third source only briefly mentions Buddhist chaplains, in a non-significant coverage manner. Furthermore, the context is more about Japanese American internment than about the religion of the members of the 442nd.
- It appears that there might be content to add to the chaplain article, but insufficient to support a stand alone article.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
10:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I added content that specifically addresses issues of Buddhism regarding Nissei troops in WWII, and is from serious non-fiction accounts from reputable academic publishers. Hope that resolves the issue. While it is not incumbent on a deletionist to improve every article, I think it poor form to spend literally more time AfDing an article that it took me to glance at GoogleBooks and add several serious cited points.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at one of the sources which was added.
- Duncan Ryuken Williams; Tomoe Moriya (25 March 2010).
Issei Buddhism in the Americas. University of Illinois Press. p. 16.
ISBN
978-0-252-09289-3.
Race eventually trumped religion as nearly 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry - whether Buddhist, Shinto, or Christina, whether Japanese or American citizens, including babies who could hardly be considered a national security threat...
- The book itself shows that the main context of the passage is of Japanese Americans who were serving, with Buddhism being one of the characteristics, not of Buddhist Americans who were serving, with their Japanese American ethnicity being one of the characteristics.
- Furthermore, the book's primary subject isn't Buddhist military history in the United States, it is about Buddhism among the Issei in the Americas (not just the United States).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I added content that specifically addresses issues of Buddhism regarding Nissei troops in WWII, and is from serious non-fiction accounts from reputable academic publishers. Hope that resolves the issue. While it is not incumbent on a deletionist to improve every article, I think it poor form to spend literally more time AfDing an article that it took me to glance at GoogleBooks and add several serious cited points.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except that the sources I noted above deal with the treatment of those soldiers' Buddhism--in WW2, the exclusion of Buddhist chaplains, some pressure to convert to Christianity, burial of killed Buddhist soldiers under crosses. There's a coherent line from "Buddhist chaplains were prohibited in WW2" to "the first Buddhist chaplain was commissioned in 2004" to "the only Buddhist chapel in the United States military is in the basement of the Air Force Academy" that isn't accurately represented if these facts are broken up into three separate articles. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand this AfD. No one is saying that Buddhist have not served in the past, including in the
442nd during
World War II. However, the context which those Buddhist have served have not been in the context of their religion, but their race and ethnicity. Thus, why there is a
Military history of Japanese Americans article, with numerous reliable sources about
Japanese Americans serving during World War II as the primary subject of those sources. However, even the sources mentioned by the above editor are in the context of those individuals as a member of a race and ethnicity and not as a member of a particular faith.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (originator): I dispute that this falls under WP:SYNTH. This is not about Group X being in the Army, and Group X coincidentally happening to be Buddhists. The article explicitly discusses the accommodations made in the US military for Buddhist servicemembers. These news articles specifically discuss the concept "Buddhists in the US military", and there are various mentions in books and museum websites of the issues arising from Buddhist Japanese-Americans serving in the US military. I'll go add in some more content, but I think this is a really pedantic jab at what is clearly an encyclopedic subject and treatment. We have parallel articles for Judaism, Sikhism, etc. and we have books and articles specifically discussing the experiences of Buddhists in the American military. Frankly, I think this AFD is a conspicuously poor use of editing time.
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- If this is the case than there should be a Christians military history in the United States. While the sources do talk about Buddhist Japanese Americans, the main context is that they are Japanese Americans not that they are Buddhist. Being Buddhist isn't the defining characteristic which the Japanese Americans were discussed in the sources, therefore to imply context that does not exist to the sources IMHO is improper. It was one part of being Japanese in the United States armed forces.
- If this is the case than there should be a Catholic military history in the United States, etc. However, unless there are sources whose primary subject is X religion in the U.S. Military and their history of service, than it isn't proving that the subject of this AfD is notable.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thus the historical section regarding World War II can be seen as a duplication of content that falls more within the scope of the article Japanese American service in World War II, which is the actual context which the context is written about, not specifically the Japanese American servicemembers' religion. The sources used for the section are more about them being Japanese American servicemembers who happen to be Buddhist than Buddhist Americans who happen to be Japanese Americans. Even the sole source that has Buddhism in the sources title preferences that with issei, the term for first generation Japanese American immigrants.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, sources established are secondary and givens significant coverage to the subject. Valoem talk contrib 00:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, but change title to Buddhists in the US Military It does seem a relevant topic, and there are clearly some sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.